SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1031

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
S.Rajmohan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai - Respondent
W.P.No.28260 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.30374 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.25085 of 2019
Decided On : 09-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.C.Vediappan For M/s.C.S.Associates
For the Respondents: Dr.K.Thirugnanam

The cancellation of the appointment was justified due to the tainted selection process and the violation of recruitment rules. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate.

Headnote:

Electrician Appointment - Violation of Recruitment Rules - G.O.Ms.No.65 - Corruption Allegations - [Electrician Appointment] - [Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employee-s Service Regulation] - [G.O.Ms.No.65, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department, dated 27.05.2009] - The court discussed the violation of recruitment rules, corruption allegations, and the importance of equal opportunity in public employment. The cancellation of the appointment was deemed consequential due to the tainted selection process and the lack of adherence to established procedures.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as an Electrician but the appointment was cancelled due to the selection being confined to SC candidates alone, despite the availability of candidates from other communities. The petitioner argued that the selection process was followed and there was no infirmity in the appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the selection process was tainted with corruption allegations and violated the Rule of Reservation. The appointment was deemed illegal and the cancellation was justified. The court also emphasized the importance of equal opportunity in public employment.

Issues: Violation of recruitment rules, corruption allegations, adherence to established procedures, and the importance of equal opportunity in public employment.

Ratio Decidendi: The cancellation of the appointment was deemed consequential due to the tainted selection process and the lack of adherence to established procedures. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate and the Rule of Reservation must be followed scrupulously.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the cancellation of the appointment was upheld. The court found no infirmity in the order impugned.

ORDER :

The order impugned dated 17.10.2017, cancelling the appointment of the writ petitioner as Electrician is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that pursuant to the Recruitment Notification issued by the third respondent, he participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Electrician. The petitioner states that he possessed the requisite qualification for selection to the post of Electrician. The petitioner participated in the interview on 04.01.2017 and he was appointed as Electrician on 04.01.2017 and joined on 11.01.2017 in Modern Rice Mill, Kallakurichi. While the petitioner was working, the third respondent issued the impugned order dated 17.10.2017, cancelling his appointment on the ground that the selection was confined to SC Candidates alone and no other candidates from other communities were called for, despite the availability of seven candidates from BC and MBC and no written test was conducted. The petitioner states that the order impugned was issued without any notice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the selection was conducted by following the procedures and the petitioner was successful in the process of selection and consequently, appointed to the post of Electrician. Thus, there was no infirmity in respect of the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner and the non-selection of the other community candidates cannot be a ground to cancel the appointment issued in favour of the writ petitioner. Though written test was not conducted, the interview was conducted as per the Notification. The Employment Exchange sponsored five candidates, 4 from SC community and 1 from BC community. In response to the paper publication, 11 candidates including the petitioner applied. Out of the 11 candidates, 4 candidates belong to BC, 1 from BC (Muslim), 2 from MBC and 4 from SC/ST. Therefore, the procedure as such notified were followed and the petitioner was appointed. If at all any error occurred in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot be penalized.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner had an opportunity of appeal before the first respondent and he has not exhausted the said appeal as per Regulation 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employee-s Service Regulation.

5. The 3rd respondent had called for a list of three candidates from Villupuram Employment Exchange for appointing 3 Electricians post in the 200 point roster Sl.No.1, General Sl.No.2. Scheduled castes and Sl.No.3, Most Backward Classes vide Letter dated 25.10.2011 and 10.11.2011. The District Employment Officer, Villupuram had sent a list of 3 set of candidates in the above mentioned communal roster in duplicate vide Letter No.2011 G.O.216 dated 14.11.2011. But, the 3rd respondent had appointed 2 Electrician post in 200 point roster Sl.No.1 General turn Thiru.G.Nethaaji, S/o.L.Gajendran and Sl.No.2, Scheduled Caste T.Mahadevan, S/o.Thanjavelu vide Proc.No.E13/17588/2010, dated 05.12.2011. The above mentioned 2 Electricians appointments have been informed to the District Employment Officer in vide Letter dated 05.06.2012.

6. In the year 2014, the 3rd respondent had identified two Electrician posts vacant in the Modern Rice Mill, Kallakurichi and Thirukoilur, consequently the 3rd respondents called a list of candidate for appointing 2 Electrician in the 200 point roster Sl.No.3, Most Backward Classes (Non priority) & SI.No.4, S.C. General (Non priority) vide Lr.No.E13/5092/2014, dated 08.12.2014, Sl.No.4, General (Non priority), which is against the G.O.Ms.No.65. The correct turn of the roster Sl.No.3, Most Backward Caste and Sl.No.4, Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Muslims). However, District Employment Officer, Villupuram had sponso

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top